Study shows Fox News viewers misinformed about war, Iraq, WMD

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Study shows Fox News viewers misinformed about war, Iraq, WMD


I have naively believed for years that staying informed about current events by getting some news is better than blissful ignorance derived from getting no news. Then Fox News Channel helped demonstrate just how wrong I was.

The Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland conducted a thorough study of public knowledge and attitudes about current events and the war on terrorism. Researchers found that the public?s mistaken impressions of three facets of U.S. foreign policy ? discovery of alleged WMD in Iraq, alleged Iraqi involvement in 9/11, and international support for a U.S. invasion of Iraq ? helped fuel support for the war.

While the PIPA study concluded that most Americans (over 60%) held at least one of these mistaken impressions, the researchers also concluded that Americans? opinions were shaped in large part by which news outlet they relied upon to receive their information.

As the researchers explained in their report, ?The extent of Americans? misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions. Those who receive most of their news from NPR or PBS are less likely to have misperceptions. These variations cannot simply be explained as a result of differences in the demographic characteristics of each audience, because these variations can also be found when comparing the demographic subgroups of each audience.?

Almost shocking was the extent to which Fox News viewers were mistaken. Those who relied on the conservative network for news, PIPA reported, were ?three times more likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions. In the audience for NPR/PBS, however, there was an overwhelming majority who did not have any of the three misperceptions, and hardly any had all three.?

Looking at the misperceptions one at a time, people were asked, for example, if the U.S. had discovered the alleged stockpiles of WMD in Iraq since the war began. Just 11% of those who relied on newspapers as their ?primary news source? incorrectly believed that U.S. forces had made such a discovery. Only slightly more ? 17% ? of those who relied on NPR and PBS were wrong. Yet 33% of Fox News viewers were wrong, far ahead of those who relied on any other outlet.

Likewise, when people were asked if the U.S. had ?clear evidence? that Saddam Hussein was ?working closely with al Queda,? similar results were found. Only 16% of NPR and PBS listeners/viewers believed that the U.S. has such evidence, while 67% of Fox News viewers were under that mistaken impression.

Overall, 80 percent of those who relied on Fox News as their primary news source believed at least one of the three misperceptions. Viewers/listeners/readers of other news outlets didn?t even come close to this total.

In other words, Fox News viewers are literally less informed about these basic facts. They have, put simply, been led to believe things that are simply not true. These poor dupes would have done better in this survey, statistically speaking, if they received no news a:mj07: t all and simply guessed whether the claims were accurate.

And, in addition to a fun bash-Fox-athon, I wanted to add that the PIPA study also documented that those who relied on newspapers as their primary news source were better informed than those who watched any of the television news broadcasts. The only folks more informed than newspaper readers were NPR listeners.
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,529
284
83
Victory Lane
this is why I watch every news channel at times and read five differant on line news papers from around the country.

You cant say that anyone didnt get a good news source because they watched one news outlet.

come on Sponge

Soak it up man.
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,529
284
83
Victory Lane
piss.gif



piss.gif
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,584
231
63
"the bunker"
why would a liberal academic institution do a study to discredit one cable news network?

think they had an agenda?...

spongy,i know you don`t understand this,but,in cases like this,the conclusion comes before the study.....then,they do a study in a manner that supports their position.....

where`d you grab this gem,spongy?
 

smurphy

cartographer
Forum Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,914
140
63
17
L.A.
gardenweasel said:
in cases like this,the conclusion comes before the study.....then,they do a study in a manner that supports their position.....

This sounds very familiar. Somethings of mass something or such.:shrug:
 

Jabberwocky

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 3, 2006
3,491
29
0
Jacksonville, FL
why would a liberal academic institution do a study to discredit one cable news network?

think they had an agenda?...


yeah, its that academic, commie agenda. It's a liberal conspiracy. There is no such thing as war profiteering, there is no collusion between GW and Haliburon/KBR and there it is no big deal that we have more contractors than soldiers in Iraq. You, Wayne, and Tenzing the ascended mage have all got it right. GW is a great world leader, and there is no chance that you, Wayne, GW, and mage boy are terminallly stupid.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
why would a liberal academic institution do a study to discredit one cable news network?

think they had an agenda?...

spongy,i know you don`t understand this,but,in cases like this,the conclusion comes before the study.....then,they do a study in a manner that supports their position.....

where`d you grab this gem,spongy?

I just report the news i don't create it.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,584
231
63
"the bunker"
couldn`t even get a date on this article out of spongy,much less a source....

c`mon buddy?...

my guess is that this comes out now as a response to dems actually going on fox to do interviews.....

boy did that offend the open minded far lefties...:scared

yes,they finally crawled out from under the covers...and guess what?...they were treated repectfully... got nothing worse than a tough question ot two...not to mention much more exposure than they`d get on pmsnbc or the sniper news network(cnn)...

that`ll be good practice particularly for bockobama in situations where the msm can`t run interference for him.....like in dealing with china/iran or syria...this isn`t a 4 year appearance on the ofrey winfrey show,ya` know.....

the media's foisted this bozo on us regardless of any character or experience because he's black and he`s the farthest left.....

hillary`s been thrown under the bus...so,this is their candidate...

so be it...
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,529
284
83
Victory Lane
Bill Clinton: I'm still making 'em faint
Posted: 07:57 PM ET

Bill Clinton joked his still can make people faint.
LENOIR, North Carolina (AP) ? Former President Bill Clinton is cracking wise about his ability to make people faint, telling voters in North Carolina he didn't think he still had it in him.

Clinton was campaigning Sunday for his wife's presidential bid on a hot and sunny day in western North Carolina. The state's primary is Tuesday.

After one person fell during an event in Lenoir, Clinton joked: "Somebody faints at nearly every one of these things now. At my age, I didn't think I could make anybody faint anymore.":SIB

A young girl walked away from an earlier event in Marion after fainting. Emergency workers brought the elderly man in Lenoir water and ice and used campaign signs to fan him. The man was alert as emergency workers took him away on a stretcher.
...............................................................

Keep the cigars away from Slick willy. what a arrogant bastid.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,513
208
63
Bowling Green Ky
why would a liberal academic institution do a study to discredit one cable news network?

think they had an agenda?...

spongy,i know you don`t understand this,but,in cases like this,the conclusion comes before the study.....then,they do a study in a manner that supports their position.....

where`d you grab this gem,spongy?[/
QUOTE]
only one place I could find--article from the carpet bagger in 03
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/714.html

I can understand why no one else except spongie was impressed enough to print it--

Click on link--and while entire article starts with "I"

never once is authors name "I" disclosed --that I can find. Can't say I ever seen that before.

---and how about his summation--

" I wanted to add that the PIPA study also documented that those who relied on newspapers as their primary news source were better informed than those who watched any of the television news broadcasts. The only folks more informed than newspaper readers were NPR listeners." :142smilie
 
Last edited:

BobbyBlueChip

Trustee
Forum Member
Dec 27, 2000
20,767
334
83
53
Belly of the Beast
Your inability to use search engines to determine liberal positions continues to amaze, DTB.

Here's the report

http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf

We could do our own poll in the forum which would absolutely confirm the findings on the report. You want to start?

Answer Yes/No
1. Is Fox News your primary source for news?
2. Did the U.S. discover the alleged stockpiles of WMD in Iraq since the war began?
3. Did the U.S. have ?clear evidence? that Saddam Hussein was ?working closely with al Queda??
4. Did the U.S. invade Iraq because world public opinion demanded it?
 

The Judge

Pura Vida!
Forum Member
Aug 5, 2004
4,909
29
0
SJO
An interesting and comprehensive survey on this subject was completed by The Pew Research Center last year. The complete results of the survey can found HERE but I have copied a couple of excerpts below.


News and Knowledge
People inevitably must learn most of what they know about current events and political figures from the news media, since few have any direct way to obtain this information. Not surprisingly, people who say they regularly watch, read, or listen to the news know more than those who don't. And people who use more news sources know more than those who use fewer sources. The differences are dramatic. Nearly three quarters (73%) of those who say they don't get news regularly from any news source fell into the low knowledge group - correctly answering an average of only six out of the 23 questions in the quiz. By contrast, about half of those who regularly use at least seven sources score in the high knowledge group - getting an average of 18 questions correct.

The poll's respondents were asked if they regularly watched, read, or listened to each of 16 different sources.2 Nearly everyone (94%) said they regularly get news from at least one of the news sources listed, and the average number of sources regularly used was between four and five (4.6). The audience size ranged widely. Local media garnered the largest regular audiences, with majorities reporting that they regularly watched local television news (71%) and read a daily newspaper (54%). Other television sources were also popular, with somewhat fewer than half watching network evening news (46%), the Fox News Channel (43%), and CNN (39%). About one third of respondents (34%) said they regularly watched the major network morning news shows.

Three more specialized television sources attracted smaller audiences. Fewer than one-in-five said they regularly watch "The O'Reilly Factor" with Bill O'Reilly (17%), comedy news shows like the Daily Show and the Colbert Report (16%), or the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer (14%).

Nearly four-in-ten people (37%) regularly use at least one type of internet news source, either the news pages of major search engines such as Google or Yahoo (25%), the websites of the television news organizations (22%), or the websites of major national newspapers such as the New York Times or USA Today (12%). Additionally, about one-in-ten (11%) read online blogs where people discuss events in the news.

Two radio sources were included in the list: 28% said they regularly listen to news from National Public Radio, and 8% are regular listeners to Rush Limbaugh's radio show.

319-12.gif



Profile of Audiences
But not all news sources are created equal. The audiences for different sources vary greatly in how much they know about what's going on, a consequence both of the kinds of people who rely on each type of medium and how much they may learn from specific sources.

Internet news sources, National Public Radio, news magazines, and Rush Limbaugh's radio show have the best educated audiences, with each of these having at least 36% of their regular readers and listeners having graduated from college. The internet sources along with the comedy news shows attract younger-than-average audiences, though many older Americans regularly get news from these sources as well. The audience for the morning network news shows is disproportionately female (61%), while Limbaugh's audience is heavily male (65%). A greater than average number of men are found in the audiences for the major newspaper websites (59%), for comedy news, The O'Reilly Factor, news magazines (54% each), and the TV news websites (53% male).

Conservatives and Republicans are especially attracted to Limbaugh, while more Democrats are found among the audiences for the NewsHour, the comedy news shows, news magazines, and the websites of major newspapers.

319-13.gif



Which Audiences Know the Most?
Attention to the news is strongly associated with knowledge levels, but some news audiences know considerably more than others. Overall, 35% of the public was classified as having a high level of knowledge - on average, 18 correct answers out of the 23 total questions. Half or more of the audiences for six media sources scored this high: the comedy news shows and major newspaper websites (54% in the high knowledge group), the NewsHour (53%), National Public Radio (51%) and Rush Limbaugh's radio show (50%). Regular readers of news magazines were not far behind (48%).

By contrast, the regular audiences for many other sources scored no higher than the sample average. The audiences for morning news (34% high knowledge), local TV news (35%), Fox News Channel (35%), blogs (37%), and the network evening news (38%) were not significantly different from the norm for the whole sample (35%). The audiences for CNN, internet news sites such as Google and Yahoo, local newspapers, and TV news organization websites scored slightly higher (41%-44% high knowledge).

This pattern is evident on many of the individual questions in the survey. For example, 32% of the public overall could name the Sunni branch of Islam, but 52% of readers of major newspaper websites could do so, as could 50% of the regular audience for the comedy news shows and 49% of NPR's regular audience. Similarly, 29% of the general public could identify Lewis "Scooter" Libby, but 45% of the NewsHour audience and 41%-44% of the regular audiences of Bill O'Reilly, comedy news shows, NPR, Rush Limbaugh, the national newspaper websites, and news magazines could do so. On both of these questions, the audiences for morning news, local TV news, Fox News Channel, blogs, and the network evening news either matched or did only slightly better in answering correctly than did the average American.

The fact that a particular news source's audience is very knowledgeable does not mean that people learned all that they know from that source. As noted earlier, some news sources draw especially well-educated audiences who are keenly interested in politics. Because of their education and life experiences, these individuals have more background information and may be better able to retain what they see in the news, regardless of where they see it.

Similarly, the news-hungry public tends to visit many outlets. The audiences for sources such as major TV news websites, the comedy shows, or the O'Reilly Factor tend to be fairly omnivorous in their media consumption - an average of more than seven separate sources for the regular audiences of each of these, compared with the overall average of 4.6 sources. Well-informed people do gravitate to particular places, but they also make use of a much wider range of news sources than do the less informed.

Still, differences in background characteristics and overall news habits do not explain all of the differences in knowledge across news audiences. Even after taking into account their overall news gathering habits and their political and demographic characteristics, the audiences for the comedy shows, The O'Reilly Factor, the web sites of national newspapers, and NPR all have significantly higher knowledge scores than the average.

319-14.gif
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Very interesting numbers. I see there's some thing good for everyone.
Fox does play down war more then others. Just watch yourself when theres been a bad day in Iraq how much they cover it. Stories Such as Pat tillmans screw up. Fox had tough time admiting he was killed by friendly fire. Pissed his mother off big time.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
All you needed was who did the study. What does where it came from have to do with anything? I don't go to blogs just political sites and read something i like i post it. why would anyone care where it came from and who is the author? You should be looking at the people who did the study. Are these people legit? The bottom line DTB and Weasel is the people who did this research feel that the two of you need to take your blinders off because you two sound like complete baffoons. Now are their findings right? From some of the reply's i see to your comments, i have to say they are spot on.:shrug:
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top